Well if you make the argument that it will replace terrestrial networks and that's why its worth X trillion $ then yes, you do actually need to cover the 1% of earth surface where the waste majority of people actually spend most of their time.

The question is not if its a good business, the question if its a 2 trillion $ business, and if you only cover the 95% of earth without coverage. That more like a couple 100 billion $ business at best.

▲

tristanj 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I never said it would replace terrestrial networks... you invented that claim yourself and are responding to a strawman.

Starlink mobile is for rural areas, and the other 90% of the planet that's not well served by traditional terrestrial networks.

And 40% of earth's population live in rural areas, so there is a large market for this kind of service.

▲

newguytony 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In regions like Nigeria or the Philippines, Starlink costs over 100% of the average monthly income. The individual addressable rural market really is closer to 1% than 40%.

	▲	tristanj 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Starlink Mobile != Starlink You're talking about the wrong product. I am talking about Starlink mobile, their direct-to-cellphone mobile data offering, not Starlink internet...

▲

thfuran 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]